26–30 October, GSA 2020 Connects Online

VOL. 30, NO. 9 | SEPTEMBER 2020

Using Mobile Technologies

to Enhance Accessibility
and Inclusion in Field-
Based Learning
 Using Mobile Technologies to
Enhance Accessibility and Inclusion
in Field-Based Learning
Steven J. Whitmeyer*, Dept. of Geology and Environmental Science, James Madison University, Harrisonburg, Virginia 22801, USA;
Christopher Atchison, School of Education and Department of Geology, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio 45221, USA; and
Trevor D. Collins, Knowledge Media Institute, The Open University, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes, UK

ABSTRACT
The relevance of field education in the geo-
sciences has been subject to increasing scru-
tiny, in part due to the exclusionary nature of
traditional field practices that require inde-
pendent work and physical agility. As an alter-
native, this article presents strategies for
increasing accessibility and inclusion in col-
laborative field-based education through the
use of mobile technologies. We present a
series of examples to show how the use of
mobile technologies in the field can enable
collaborative observation, data collection,
data sharing, and interpretation. The strate-
gies developed in these examples provide
equitable access to instruction, peer engage-
ment, and participation in every field exercise.
We suggest that technological approaches to
accessibility and inclusion in the field can
facilitate opportunities for all students to gain
field experiences that are an important com-
ponent of geoscience education.
INTRODUCTION
Field investigations are often a component
of geoscience research, and consequently
field-based education has been included in
geoscience curricula. However, the relevance
of field education has been subjected to
increasing scrutiny (Drummond, 2001;
Dohms, 2011), partly due to an increased
focus on lab-based research. Another concern
has been the “exclusivity” of traditional field-
work, where independence (Healey et al.,
2001; Maskall and Stokes, 2009) and physical
conditioning (Kirchner, 1994; Maguire, 1998;
Feig, 2010) were lauded (Hall et al., 2002;
Atchison et al., 2019a; Stokes et al., 2019). The
attributes cater to outdoor enthusiasts that
may be considering a geoscience career, but it
has become clear that many others are disen-
franchised by these restrictions.
Field mapping and data collection are
often viewed as individual experiences,
where a geologist collects data in the field
without much, if any, contemporaneous
input from other field workers. However,
field-based investigations by a group of par-
ticipants have been demonstrated to build
strong ties and increase morale within stu-
dent peer groups through collaborative strat-
egies that enhance learning in the field
(Mogk and Goodwin, 2012; Kelley et al.,
2015). In addition, collaborative fieldwork
can yield high-density geologic maps, which
can facilitate improved geologic interpreta-
tions (Whitmeyer et al., 2019). Thus, collab-
orative fieldwork can be an important
approach to effective field data collection
and field-based learning experiences.
Mobile devices provide new methods of
communication and interaction in field set-
tings and are now commonly used for field
data collection and even data analyses (Pav-
lis et al., 2010; Collins, 2015; France et al.,
2015; Allmendinger et al., 2017; Walker et
al., 2019). In addition, mobile technologies
can enhance real-time communication in the
field, facilitating a level of interaction and
collaboration that was previously unattain-
able. Real-time communication can increase
participation for people with physical dis-
abilities by enabling collaboration with peers
and engagement with field locations that are
remote and inaccessible (Coughlan et al.,
2011; Stokes et al., 2012; Collins et al., 2016).
In this paper we outline a strategy for
increasing accessibility and inclusion in
field-based education and research using
mobile technologies. The context of this
work is presented, followed by short
descriptions of field trips and a summary of
the contrasting uses of technology across
these trips. Opportunities and challenges
with integrating technology and teaching
strategies intended to improve access and
inclusion are discussed, concluding with
recommendations for practitioners.
APPROACH
Our approach to enhancing accessibility
and inclusivity in the field focused on pair-
ing students with physical (mobility) dis-
abilities with students who were fully
ambulatory on a variety of projects that rep-
licated field exercises in an undergraduate
geoscience curriculum. The student cohort
consisted of six students who self-disclosed
various mobility disabilities and six stu-
dents who did not disclose any mobility dis-
abilities. In the first year of the project, field
exercises were located at several sites in
Arizona, while the second year focused on
sites in western Ireland. Project outcomes
subsequently were disseminated on three
accessible field trips at Mount St. Helens
National Volcanic Monument (2017), Mam-
moth Cave National Park (2018), and Petri-
fied Forest National Park (PEFO; Atchison
et al., 2019b). Field trip participants (n ≈ 80)
included several project participants, along
with undergraduate and graduate geology
students with disabilities, and geoscience
instructors, some of whom had disabilities.
Mobile communication and data collection
devices (see Supplemental Table SD11) facili-
tated interaction among project students

GSA Today, v. 30, https://doi.org/10.1130/GSATG462A.1. Copyright 2020, The Geological Society of America. CC-BY-NC.

*whitmesj@jmu.edu

1
Supplemental Material: Table SD1 and Figures SD1, SD2, and SD3. Please visit https://doi.org/10.1130/GSAT.S.12501404 to access the supplemental material, and
contact editing@geosociety.org with any questions.

4  GSA Today | September 2020

(during the project exercises) and field trip
participants (during the dissemination field
trips) across sites that were easy to access
(roads, well-groomed paths, etc.) and loca-
tions with more challenging terrains. Field
environments ranged from arid, dry condi-
tions (Arizona, PEFO) to colder and wetter
conditions (Ireland, Mount St. Helens).
EXAMPLE FIELD TRIPS
Arizona Field Sites, Year 1
We visited field locations in central Ari-
zona in May 2015, including Slide Rock
State Park in Oak Creek Canyon, The Trail
of Time on the south rim of the Grand Can-
yon, and SP Crater north of Flagstaff. These
trips paired undergraduate-level geoscience
students with and without physical (mobility)
disabilities on shorter duration (single day)
field exercises. A variety of communications
and technology devices enhanced collabora-
tive inclusion and access to the field sites.
Summaries of each exercise follow, includ-
ing objectives, technology used, and an over-
view of site accessibility.
1. Slide Rock State Park
The geologic features of interest at Slide
Rock State Park (see Supplemental Fig. SD1
[see footnote 1]) consist of 50–100 m cliffs of
horizontal, layer-cake stratigraphy of the
Colorado Plateau transition zone. This intro-
ductory exercise introduced student teams to
using iPads to record observations and anno-
tate photos of the layered stratigraphy. Goals
included team-building, effective recording
of observations, and interpretations of unfa-
miliar geology. The exercise concluded with
a full group discussion of the geology, fol-
lowed by discussions on the accessibility of
the site and collaborations between student
team members.
Technology used: iPad cameras and
Evernote app.
Figure 1. The SP Crater cinder cone that was only accessible to half of the cohort (left), the group that remained at the base used two-way radios (middle)
and a Livestream video broadcast (right) to communicate with students at the top of the cinder cone.
Accessibility: Equitable access to the site;
paved and packed dirt paths available for all
to explore the park, but cliff outcrops were
only viewable from a distance (~500 m).
2. The Grand Canyon
This exercise focused on the Trail of Time
(ToT), a 1.6 km paved trail along the south rim
of the Grand Canyon, with tactile exhibits that
document two billion years of regional geo-
logic history (Karlstrom et al., 2008). Students
worked in teams across ability levels to visit
sites along the ToT that displayed rock sam-
ples obtained from deep within the canyon,
which illustrate the classic stratigraphy of the
Grand Canyon. Student teams used the Strat-
Logger app to record lithologic descriptions
and construct a stratigraphic column of the
Grand Canyon units.
Technology used: iPad cameras and
StratLogger app.
Accessibility: Equitable access to the
ToT, although the distance traveled along
the ToT proved challenging for some stu-
dents with disabilities. Students traveled
chronologically along the ToT, starting at
the Grand Canyon Village Visitor Center
and heading toward the Yavapai Point Visi-
tor Center. Traveling in this direction
included a slight incline in elevation, and,
depending on the number of visitors, few
available benches for seating. With the
exception of the powered wheelchair users,
students with mobility disabilities were
negatively impacted by the length and
incline of the trail. Hot and dry conditions
were an issue for all participants.
3. SP Crater
SP Crater is an ~1000 m cinder cone
located north of Flagstaff (Fig. 1; Ulrich,
1987). Student teams were separated during
this activity: those with disabilities stayed
with the vehicles at the base of the mountain,
while those without disabilities hiked to the
summit from two approaches. One trail
wrapped around the mountain and ascended
the back side, and the other took a direct path
up the front of the mountain. Students used
two-way radios to communicate during the
hike. However, students who hiked around
the back of the mountain lost line-of-sight
and radio contact with their partners at the
vehicles, while those who took the front path
to the top maintained line-of-sight and com-
munications with the group at the base. Once
at the top of the mountain, all students were
able to communicate with their partners at
the base using two-way radios as well as the
Livestream app for real-time video broad-
casts of the summit views.
Technology used: Two-way radios, GoPro
video cameras, iPad cameras, and Livestream
app.
Accessibility: A physically inaccessible
field site where several students remained
with the vehicles at the base of the moun-
tain, while others climbed the mountain via
the steep, loose-cinder front, or a longer
path around the back; communication was
hindered by loss of line-of-sight and a sig-
nificant (1–2 min) delay in the Livestream
video relay from the summit.
Western Ireland Field Sites, Year 2
Year 2 focused on field sites in western
Ireland, where challenges to field access
and participation were very different from
Arizona. Field sites in western Ireland were
typically windy, cold, and often rainy. The
field exercises during the second year fea-
tured the same cohort of students and
expanded on the experiences of the previ-
ous year. Exercises were longer, more
involved, and often incorporated different
technological solutions.
1. Kilkee, County Clare
This half-day exercise focused on describ-
ing and interpreting sedimentary structures
www.geosociety.org/gsatoday  5
Figure 2. Students at the exposed seaside cliffs near Kilkee (left) using the camera and Skitch application on the iPads (middle) to record and annotate the
sedimentary structures and deformation features (right) to share with their peers who did not access this location.
and deformation features in rocks exposed
along seaside cliffs near the town of Kilkee
(Fig. 2). Most of the features, such as ripple
marks, cross-beds, and soft-sediment defor-
mation structures (Martinsen et al., 2008)
were viewable by all participants from a
paved path along the top of the cliffs. Some
smaller-scale features, such as sand volca-
noes and fault surfaces, required descending
steps to an eroded cliff platform and thus
were not accessible to everyone. Students
used iPad cameras and the Evernote and
Skitch apps to record, sketch, and describe
features; remote communications were facil-
itated with two-way radios. A full group dis-
cussion of the exercise occurred indoors later
in the evening.
Technology used: iPad cameras, Ever-
note and Skitch apps.
Accessibility: Paved paths did not extend
onto cliff exposures, which were only acces-
sible by stairs. Foot paths were narrow and
steep in locations, inaccessible to wheelchair
users. High winds made group communica-
tions difficult.
2. Lough Derryclare, Connemara
This three-day exercise focused on bedrock
mapping in a boggy field area along the south-
ern shore of Lough Derryclare in Connemara.
Geological features included folded schists
and quartzites of the Connemara Dalradian
sequence (Leake and Tanner, 1994). Outcrops
along a gravel road were accessible to all stu-
dents; other outcrops required traversing
boggy fields and were not accessible to stu-
dents with mobility disabilities. Cell signals in
the area were weak and ineffective, so a local
area network (LAN) was set up to facilitate
real-time communications between team
members (see Network Connectivity section).
Students recorded field data (lithologic
descriptions and orientation measurements)
with the FieldMove app in order to create a
collaborative geologic map. Students with
6  GSA Today | September 2020
mobility disabilities mapped outcrops along
the gravel road, while mobile students mapped
outcrops in more distant and less accessible
locations. Students communicated in real
time via two-way radios and iPads using the
AirBeam app. Photos were shared in near real
time with the PhotoSync app. Videos were
recorded asynchronously with GoPro cam-
eras and shared between team members upon
reconvening in common locations.
Technology used: Two-way radios, GoPro
cameras, iPad cameras, FieldMove, AirBeam,
and PhotoSync apps, with real-time commu-
nications facilitated by a LAN.
Accessibility: Outcrops along the gravel
road were accessible to all students; remote
outcrops were not accessible to students
with mobility disabilities due to intervening
uneven bogs. Rainy and cold weather nega-
tively impacted all participants.
3. Renvyle Point, County Galway
The coastal bluff at Renvyle Point con-
sists of an ~15 m vertical exposure of gla-
cial till that lies unconformably on a wave
cut platform of Dalradian Schist. The bluffs
are not visible from the parking area and
can only be reached after descending an
uneven field of beach cobbles and boulders
(see Supplemental Fig. SD2 [see footnote
1]). The half-day exercise focused on exam-
ining and interpreting deformation and flu-
idized flow features within the glacial till
in order to determine the movement of the
glacier. Due to the challenging terrain of
the field area and the rainy weather, stu-
dents with mobility disabilities remained in
the vehicles and collaborated with their
peers using two-way radios and iPads via
a LAN.
Technology used: Two-way radios, GoPro
cameras, iPad cameras, AirBeam and Photo-
Sync apps; real-time communications and
data exchange with iPads were facilitated by
a LAN.
Accessibility: Exposures of glacial till were
only accessible by climbing down large, wet
boulders along the shore. Rainy and windy
weather made outdoor audio communications
difficult.
TECHNOLOGY TO ENHANCE FIELD
ACCESS AND INCLUSION
Synchronous and Asynchronous
Communication
We used both synchronous (real-time
sharing of audio or video) and asynchronous
(delayed sharing) methods of communica-
tion while in the field. Synchronous commu-
nications were facilitated by a cell network at
SP Crater to broadcast a video stream from
the summit to students at the base of the hill.
We used the Livestream web broadcasting
app, but the 1–2-minute delay between trans-
mitting and receiving the video stream made
synchronous interactions between team
members challenging. Students found the
discrepancy between the faster audio com-
munications and the slower video transmis-
sions awkward. Students ascending the hill
also used two-way radios for audio commu-
nications with team members at the base,
which had no time lag as long as line-of-sight
was maintained. Two-way radios typically
have a strong signal across distances of
2–3 km and were frequently used by student
teams when WiFi was not functional. In
locations where a LAN was available, the
AirBeam app was used for synchronous
video streaming, and PhotoSync was used
for photo sharing.
In field settings where cell signals or a
LAN were not available, data sharing
among participants across field sites was
accomplished with asynchronous methods,
although real-time communication could
still be accomplished with two-way radios.
Participants asynchronously recorded video
with GoPro or iPad cameras and collected
field data with a variety of iPad apps. Data
were shared when participants were once
again in close proximity. Once a cell or
WiFi signal was available, participants
uploaded their field data to Dropbox so that
others could view and download it.
Network Connectivity
The level of connectivity between partici-
pants distributed across a field site can deter-
mine the degree of synchronicity available
for interactions. Typically, cable or fiber con-
nections are not practical in the field, cell
network coverage can be unreliable, and sat-
ellite connections are expensive. A more
manageable communications solution is to
“bring your own network” to the field in the
form of a LAN using battery-powered out-
door WiFi routers. The local topography, and
the distribution and mobility of students
across the site, affects the number of routers
required to provide effective connectivity.
Panel and omni-directional antennas are
used to target the WiFi signal in a directed
beam or over a local area (respectively) and
moved as needed to maintain coverage
across the site. The routers are configured as
access points, providing connectivity for
local devices, or in a chain of point-to-point
links to connect field site locations (Collins
et al., 2010). Some knowledge of computer
networking is required, but once configured,
a LAN can be used flexibly in a range of
field scenarios.
The LAN was used at the Lough Derryclare
and Renvyle Point field sites to stream video
between iPads using the AirBeam app and
share photos using the Photosync app. At
Lough Derryclare, as students were distrib-
uted across the field site, up to six WiFi rout-
ers were used in a network as line-of-sight
signal repeaters to maintain connectivity
across the rough and hilly terrain. This con-
figuration provided network coverage of up to
two square kilometers of the field area. At
Renvyle Point, access points were used at the
two student locations (the car park and shore-
line) connected by a 40-m network cable.
iPad Apps
Fieldwork activities were supported
through a range of iPad apps (see Supple-
mental Table SD1 [see footnote 1]). Photos
and videos were captured asynchronously
using iPad or GoPro cameras. Photos were
shared with the PhotoSync app, and synchro-
nous video feeds were attempted with the
Livestream and AirBeam apps. Field notes
and students’ reflections were recorded
using the Notes, Evernote, or Notability
apps, and photos were annotated with the
Skitch app. Orientation measurements were
collected and geologic maps were con-
structed using the FieldMove app. Two apps
were used to construct stratigraphic sections:
StratLogger was used in year one, and Strat
Mobile was used at PEFO (see Atchison et
al., 2019b). Dropbox was used to share files
among participants and between the iPads
when connected to the Internet. Flyover
Country was used on the PEFO field trip to
bring geologic maps and information into the
field as reference materials. Many of these
field mapping and data collection applica-
tions can now be accomplished with the
StraboSpot app and database system (Walker
et al., 2019). However, that was not available
to us during the period that we conducted
the project exercises.
DISCUSSION
The primary objective of this project was
to determine ways to enhance collaboration
across instructional activities in field sites
with limited accessibility. Challenging ter-
rain and changing environmental condi-
tions impacted participation in field activi-
ties across a spectrum of physical abilities.
We attempted to mitigate the issues of
accessibility in field-based teaching and
learning through the integration of technol-
ogy and collaborative strategies that pro-
mote full inclusion. The sociotechnical
solutions highlighted in this paper resulted
from the usability of mobile technologies,
levels of social and academic engagement,
and environmental conditions.
Inclusion and Accessibility
Accessibility and inclusion are not synony-
mous terms but are often used as such (Cara-
bajal and Atchison, 2020). In this project,
accessibility and inclusion were both partially
addressed through the use of technology. Par-
ticipants with disabilities achieved better
access to less-accessible field sites through
photo and video imagery from peers and col-
leagues and imagery from apps such as Field-
Move and Flyover Country. Inclusion, how-
ever, deals with the group dynamic, social
engagement, and collaborative nature inher-
ent in most field activities. The use of technol-
ogy in this sense enables participants to col-
laborate through real-time video and photo
sharing and two-way radios to share observa-
tions and interpretations with peers and col-
leagues. The opportunity for the entire
learning community to draw from multiple
perspectives of an individual field site (close-
up, from a distance, through aerial imagery),
including the ability to discuss disparate
observations across distances for the purpose
of developing collective interpretations,
strengthened the overall understanding of the
entire group (see Atchison et al., 2019a).
Inclusive Collaboration through
Technology
We addressed data collection and com-
munication in the field with both synchro-
nous (real-time connectivity) and asynchro-
nous (delayed) solutions. In many situations,
asynchronous solutions were used as a
backup when real-time solutions were inef-
fective—such as the time delay (buffering
delay) between broadcast and reception
when using the Livestream app at SP Crater,
or when a WiFi network was unavailable
(e.g., Kilkee). In the discussion of technol-
ogy that follows we consider both success-
ful and less successful solutions, in the hope
that others can make use of, and expand on,
our experiences.
Geologic Mapping and Data
Collection
We used the StratLogger app for the ToT
exercise at the Grand Canyon to record litho-
logic and stratigraphic data. After an intro-
duction to using the app, students were fairly
efficient in recording data and building their
stratigraphic columns. We switched to the
Strat Mobile app for the PEFO field trip after
we found that StratLogger did not work with
the latest operating system of the iPads.
Often, the most effective software for geo-
science fieldwork is developed by tech-savvy
geoscientists, but it can be a challenge for
geoscientist developers to keep their soft-
ware compatible with continuous updates to
operating systems. Commercial software
solutions are usually up-to-date with operat-
ing systems but are often less effective for
specialized field tasks.
We used the FieldMove app for geologic
mapping in the field. FieldMove includes a
digital compass that records orientation mea-
surements and plots them in real time on a
basemap of the area (road map, terrain map,
or aerial photo). Alternatively, a hand-held
compass can be used to take measurements
and entered manually in FieldMove. Con-
cerns have been expressed about the accu-
racy and precision of measurements taken by
digital compasses. However, recent analyses
suggest that digital compasses, such as those
in FieldMove, can produce results at a
www.geosociety.org/gsatoday  7
similar level of accuracy and precision as
analog compasses, as long as the digital
compass is calibrated correctly (Novakova
and Pavlis, 2017; Whitmeyer et al., 2019). We
noted an advantage to using the iPads for
measurements when several of the students
with mobility disabilities had difficulty get-
ting close enough to utilize a handheld com-
pass on an outcrop surface.
Field geologists who predate the mobile
technology revolution are accustomed to
using paper field books for notes and
sketches, and often find note-taking apps for
mobile devices less intuitive to use. How-
ever, students who are accustomed to using
mobile devices for communications and
social interactions easily adapted to using
apps like Notability, Evernote, and Skitch to
record field observations. Students appreci-
ated the capability of these apps to import
pictures taken with the iPad cameras, mak-
ing it easy to associate field photos with text
annotations and explanations, and to draw
interpretive sketches on photos.
Another advantage of mobile devices is
the ability to preload data and maps on the
device for later asynchronous use. Mapping
apps like FieldMove allow users to preload
georeferenced aerial photos or topographic
base-maps for fieldwork. Geologic reference
data and information can be preloaded on
iPads with an app like Flyover Country. We
used this app to load state-level geologic
maps and information for southern and east-
ern Arizona for our journey from Phoenix to
Holbrook during the PEFO field trip. This
provided participants with background geo-
logic and cultural information for reference
as they traveled through a region of interest.
Audio and Video Communications in
the Field
We experimented with video broad-
casting apps that were less successful
(e.g., Livestream), prior to settling on the
AirBeam app for video streaming with a
LAN. This facilitated video communica-
tions among team members with a minimal
delay (<5 seconds). At both the Lough
Derryclare and Renvyle Point field sites, stu-
dents with mobility disabilities found that
video communications with their partners
provided a level of accessibility to remote
outcrops that would not have been possible
without the technology. In some situations,
near real-time transfer of photos and still
images between team members effectively
substituted for video communications.
Where weather or connectivity challenges
8  GSA Today | September 2020
precluded effective video links, students
used the PhotoSync app to share still images
and discussed the geologic features in the
photos using two-way radios.
Even with our attempts to secure robust
wireless signals for real-time communica-
tions, we still encountered many situations
where asynchronous methods of data collec-
tion were necessary. Students always had the
option of taking photos or recording videos
using the iPad’s native camera, which could
be shared with their team members at a later
time. GoPro wearable video cameras were
extensively used to record traverses across a
field area and to highlight important geo-
logic features. Photos and recorded videos
served as important field data that were used
to both complete field exercises and to docu-
ment field experiences.
Facilitating Connectivity in the Field
As with any field equipment, there is a
degree of contingency planning needed
when introducing mobile technology. Most
crucial is the time taken to set up equipment
in the field or fix problems that could
impact students’ learning experiences. Pre-
configuring the LAN (e.g., connecting the
routers, testing them, and packing them
ready for deployment) helps minimize the
setup time in the field. Knowledge of the
field sites and the activities at each site is
crucial to ensure that network coverage is
sufficient (while minimizing redundancy).
Revisiting known sites enables the re-use
and rapid deployment of effective technol-
ogy configurations. Bringing spares of
essential components (e.g., batteries, cables)
into the field enables faulty equipment to be
easily replaced. Also important is to pre-
pare alternate resources (e.g., two-way
radios) and activities to be used in the case
of technology failure.
Effective use of a LAN in larger field
areas usually requires the services of a field
technology expert. The expert not only con-
figures the network, but also tests it and
deploys it in the field prior to the arrival of
students. Invariably, unforeseen challenges
occur during a field session, and it is essen-
tial to have the tech expert available in the
field to troubleshoot problems that develop.
We often used two-way radios for commu-
nication between participants and the expert
in order to resolve issues. Some technologi-
cal challenges were not solvable in the field
and necessitated the development of new
solutions after returning from the field in
order to mitigate future problems.
Student Engagement
This study was initially focused on evaluat-
ing learning outcomes related to geoscience
field content, but soon expanded to identify
overall collaborative inclusion and engage-
ment of field activities in sites with limited
physical accessibility. Engagement and over-
all enjoyment were palpable, mostly because a
geoscience field study of this kind, which
included multiple students with similar physi-
cal disabilities, was designed specifically to
address student needs. All students realized
they were part of a foundational study to
enhance access to field learning and were
aware that their personal well-being was con-
sidered in the design. The study remained
flexible to enable their voices to drive the
direction of the activities, especially when
unavoidable changes in environmental condi-
tions (e.g., daily weather) caused us to reeval-
uate our plans. Taken as a whole, students
were not used to having an opportunity that
was meant to include them, their strengths
and abilities, which undoubtedly impacted
overall engagement and enjoyment. However,
not everything was enjoyable and engaging
all of the time. The students without disabili-
ties, who generally had more field experience
than their disabled peers, were often left feel-
ing as if they were only being used to collect
data in sites that their colleagues could not
access. Additionally, switching between tech-
nologies that were new to most of the students,
and the occasional lag-time between audio
communication and photo/video sharing, neg-
atively impacted engagement and collabora-
tive outcomes overall.
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
The integration of mobile communication
and data collection technologies can have a
positive impact on teaching and learning in
field-based activities. Increased collaborative
engagement and social inclusion in the learn-
ing community is achievable, even when stu-
dents are separated across field sites with
variable accessibility. Real-time communica-
tion between groups enables data sharing,
shared observations, and interpretations that
are not commonly done when working groups
are separated. This social inclusion and col-
laboration is important because it gives stu-
dents ownership in the learning environment.
However, the integration of technology can
introduce additional challenges to the student
field experience. Students often have varying
levels of field experience, geology content
knowledge, and comfort with using technol-
ogy to collect data and communicate. Varying
levels of confidence in the use of mobile tech-
nologies can amplify anxiety and develop an
unwelcome stratified community of learning
within the group.
Not everything we tried was successful,
but even the small failures drove the evolu-
tion of the project through a constant attempt
to overcome physical barriers to field-based
teaching and learning. Outcomes of the proj-
ect that demonstrate how technology can be
used to enhance access to field sites and
increase collaborative inclusion across all
participants during field exercises include:
1. The inherent flexibility of digital tools rec-
ognizes diversity and enables personal
choice (i.e., fieldwork does not have to be
restrictive).
2. Specialized field apps are typically the
best solutions for geoscience fieldwork but
are often developed by domain specialists
and not always well maintained.
3. Always have contingency plans—tech-
nologies and strategies can fail for a vari-
ety of reasons, so have back-up equipment
and alternate options (e.g., asynchronous
can succeed when synchronous fails).
4. Be prepared—preconfigure the technol-
ogy and ensure that everyone knows how
to use it before going into the field. Know
how to get help when things go wrong.
5. Ensure you have adequate resources—
fieldwork is unpredictable, so make sure
you have the expertise to adapt (especially
when technology is involved).
We have discussed our experiences with
this exploratory pilot study, encompassing
both successes and challenges, and some pos-
sible strategies for implementing the use of
mobile technologies for enhanced fieldwork.
Expanding the scope of our approaches will
require a significant change in how most of us
conduct research and education in the field.
Doing so would not only provide improved
experiences for students, but also would
enhance the pedagogic toolkit available to
field instructors. We envision the next phase
of this work as focusing on the geoscience
community as a whole, to expand the out-
comes of this work and develop new strategies
to make multi-day and residential field expe-
riences accessible and inclusive of all geosci-
entists. In addition, now that we have identi-
fied the capabilities and potential of using
various mobile technologies to increase
access and engagement in a field-based inclu-
sive learning community, we recognize the
need to align the content of inclusive field
experiences to typical field-camp learning
objectives (e.g., collecting accurate data in the
field, synthesizing data to create geologic
map interpretations, synthesizing field data
and interpretations to write a summary of the
geologic history, among others). Evaluation of
the effectiveness of the methods discussed in
this paper against student learning outcomes
will indicate the utility of these methods.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors acknowledge helpful reviews by
Randy Williams and an anonymous reviewer and
comments from editor Mihai Ducea. The authors
would like to acknowledge student and faculty par-
ticipants, as well as the members of the project
team: Declan De Paor, Eric Pyle, Jennifer Piatek,
Susan Eriksson, Martin Feely, Helen Crompton,
Anita Marshall, and Ivan Carabajal. This work was
supported by NSF award #1540652. Any opinion,
findings, and conclusions or recommendations ex-
pressed in this material are those of the authors and
do not necessarily reflect the views of the National
Science Foundation.
REFERENCES CITED
Allmendinger, R.W., Siron, C.R., and Scott, C.P.,
2017, Structural data collection with mobile de-
vices: Accuracy, redundancy, and best practices:
Journal of Structural Geology, v. 102, p. 98–112,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsg.2017.07.011.
Atchison, C., Marshall, A., and Collins, T., 2019a,
A multiple case study of inclusive learning com-
munities enabling active participation in geosci-
ence field courses for students with physical dis-
abilities: Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 67,
no. 4, p. 472–486, https://doi.org/10.1080/108999
95.2019.1600962.
Atchison, C., Parker, W., Riggs, N., Semken, S., and
Whitmeyer, S., 2019b, Accessibility and inclu-
sion in the field: A field guide for central Arizona
and Petrified Forest National Park, in Pearthree,
P.A., ed., Geologic Excursions in Southwestern
North America: Geological Society of America
Field Guide 55, p. 39–60, https://doi.org/10.1130/​
2019.0055(02).
Carabajal, I.G., and Atchison, C.L., 2020, An inves-
tigation of accessible and inclusive instructional
field practices in U.S. geoscience departments,
in de Jesus Rydin, P.C., Richardson, K., Karsten,
J., and Oguchi, C., eds., Diversity and Equality
in the Geosciences, Advances in Geosciences:
European Geophysical Union, v. 1, p. 1–11,
https://doi.org/10.5194/adgeo-1-1-2020.
Collins, T., 2015, Enhancing outdoor learning
through participatory design and development: A
case study of embedding mobile learning at a field
study centre: International Journal of Mobile Hu-
man Computer Interaction, v. 7, no. 1, p. 42–58,
https://doi.org/10.4018/ijmhci.2015010103.
Collins, T., Gaved, M., and Lea, J., 2010, Remote
fieldwork: Using portable wireless networks and
backhaul links to participate remotely in field-
work, in The Proceedings of the 9th World Con-
ference on Mobile and Contextual Learning
(mlearn 2010), 19–22 Oct 2010, Valletta, Malta,
htt ps://core.ac.uk /download /pdf/16852.pdf
(accessed 18 June 2020).
Collins, T., Davies, S.J., and Gaved, M., 2016, En-
abling remote activity: Widening participation
in field study courses, in Kennepohl, D., ed.,
Teaching Science Online: Practical Guidance for
Effective Instruction and Lab Work: Sterling,
Virginia, USA, Stylus Publishing, p. 183–195.
Coughlan, T., Adams, A., Collins, T., Davies, S.J.,
Lea, J., and Rogers, Y., 2011, Working with ‘mis-
sion control’ in scientific fieldwork: Supporting
interactions between in situ and distanced collab-
orators, in The 2011 ACM Conference on Com-
puter Supported Cooperative Work, 19–23 Mar
2011, Hangzhou, China, http://oro.open.ac.uk/​
26139/ (accessed 18 June 2020).
Dohms, P., 2011, Education and training of geolo-
gists; is field camp still relevant?: Professional
Geologist, v. 48, p. 12–14.
Drummond, C., 2001, Can field camps survive?:
Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 49, no. 4,
p. 336.
Feig, A.D., 2010, Technology, accuracy and scientific
thought in field camp: An ethnographic study:
Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 58, no. 4,
p. 241–251, https://doi.org/10.5408/1.3534863.
France, D., Whalley, W.B., Mauchline, A., Powell,
V., Welsh, K., Lerczak, A., Park, J., and Bednarz,
R.S., 2015, Enhancing Fieldwork Learning Using
Mobile Technologies: Berlin, Springer, 176 p.,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20967-8.
Hall, T., Healey, M., and Harrison, M., 2002, Field-
work and disabled students: Discourses of exclu-
sion and inclusion: Transactions of the Institute
of British Geographers, v. 27, p. 213–231, https://
doi.org/10.1111/1475-5661.00050.
Healey, M., Jenkins, A., Leach, J., and Roberts, C.,
2001, Issues in Providing Learning Support for
Disabled Students Undertaking Fieldwork and
Related Activities, in Gravestock, P., and Healey,
M., eds.: http://gdn.glos.ac.uk/disabil/overview/
overview.pdf (accessed 18 June 2020).
Karlstrom, K., Semken, S., Crossey, L., Perry, D.,
Gyllenhaal, E.D., Dodick, J., Williams, M.,
Hellmich-Bryan, J., Crow, R., Bueno Watts, N.,
and Ault, C., 2008, Informal geoscience educa-
tion on a grand scale: The Trail of Time exhibi-
tion at Grand Canyon: Journal of Geoscience
Education, v. 56, no. 4, p. 354–361, https://doi​
.org/10.5408/informal_geoscience_education_.
Kelley, D.F., Sumrall, J.L., and Sumrall, J.B., 2015,
Student-designed mapping project as part of a
geology field camp: Journal of Geoscience Edu-
cation, v. 63, p. 198–209, https://doi.org/​10.5408/​
14-003.1.
Kirchner, J.G., 1994, Results of an alumni survey
on professional and personal growth at field
camp: Journal of Geological Education, v. 42,
no. 2, p. 125–128, https://doi.org/10.5408/0022​
-1368-42.2.125.
Leake, B.E., and Tanner, P.W.G., 1994, The Geolo-
gy of the Dalradian and Associated Rocks of
Connemara, Western Ireland, Special Publica-
tion: Dublin, Ireland, Royal Irish Academy,
96 p., ISBN 1-874045-18-6.
Maguire, S., 1998, Gender differences in attitudes
to undergraduate fieldwork: Area, v.  30, no.  3,
p. 207–214, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4762​
.1998.tb00065.x.
Martinsen, O.J., Sullivan, M., Pulham, A., Haugh-
ton, P., Harper, H., and Elliott, T., 2008, Out-
crops Revitalized: Tools, Techniques and Appli-
cations: Kilkee, County Clare, Ireland, 22–27
June, SEPM Research Conference, p. 1–58.
www.geosociety.org/gsatoday  9
Maskall, J., and Stokes, A., 2009, Designing Effective
Fieldwork for the Environmental and Natural Sci-
ences: Plymouth, UK, Higher Education Academy
Subject Centre for Geography, Earth and Environ-
mental Sciences, https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/
knowledge-hub/designing-effective ​ -fieldwork​
-environmental​-and​-natural-sciences (accessed
19 June 2020).
Mogk, D.W., and Goodwin, C., 2012, Learning in
the field: Synthesis of research on thinking and
learning in the geosciences, in Kastens, K.A.,
and Manduca, C.A., eds., Earth and Mind II: A
Synthesis of Research on Thinking and Learn-
ing in the Geosciences: Geological Society of
America Special Paper 486, p. 131–163, https://
doi.org/10.1130/2012.2486(24).
Novakova, L., and Pavlis, T.L., 2017, Assessment of
the precision of smart phones and tablets for mea-
surement of planar orientations: A case study:
Journal of Structural Geology, v. 97, p. 93–103,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsg.2017.02.015.
10  GSA Today | September 2020
Pavlis, T.L., Langford, R., Hurtado, J., and Serpa, L.,
2010, Computer-based data acquisition and visu-
alization systems in field geology: Results from
12 years of experimentation and future potential:
Geosphere, v. 6, p. 275–294, https://​d oi​.org/​
10.1130/​GES00503.S2.
Stokes, A., Collins, T., Maskall, J., Lea, J., Lunt, P.,
and Davies, S.J., 2012, Enabling remote access
to fieldwork: Gaining insight into the pedagogic
effectiveness of ‘direct’ and ‘remote’ field activi-
ties: Journal of Geography in Higher Education,
v. 36, no. 2, p. 197–222, https://doi.org/10.1080/​
03098265.2011.619004.
Stokes, A., Feig, A.D., Atchison, C.L., and Gilley,
B., 2019, Making geoscience fieldwork inclusive
and accessible for students with disabilities:
Geosphere, v. 15, no. 6, p. 1809–1825, https://doi​
.org/10.1130/GES02006.1.
Ulrich, G.E., 1987, SP Mountain cinder cone and
lava flow, northern Arizona: Geological Society
of America Centennial Field Guide, Rocky
Mountain Section, p. 385–388, https://doi.org/​
10.1130/0-8137-5402-X.385.
Walker, J.D., Tikoff, B., Newman, J., Clark, R.,
Ash, J., Good, J., Bunse, E.G., Moller, A., Kahn,
M., Williams, R.T., Michels, Z., Andrew, J.E.,
and Rufledt, C., 2019, StraboSpot data system for
structural geology: Geosphere, v. 15, https://doi​
.org/10.1130/GES02039.1.
Whitmeyer, S.J., Pyle, E.J., Pavlis, T.L., Swanger,
W., and Roberts, L., 2019, Modern approaches to
field data collection and mapping: Digital meth-
ods, crowdsourcing, and the future of statistical
analyses: Journal of Structural Geology, v. 125,
p. 29–40, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsg.2018.06.023.
M anuscript received 24 A pr. 2020
R evised manuscript received 11 June 2020
M anuscript accepted 14 June 2020